Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd November 2005, 12:09 AM   #181
Sheldon is offline Sheldon  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego
Thanks,

Sheldon
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2005, 04:19 AM   #182
kfr01 is offline kfr01  United States
diyAudio Member
 
kfr01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Work Around or Fix of Waves XO Found?

I saw the identification of a seemingly show-stopping problem with the Waves XO a few pages of posts back.

I may have missed something, but was a work-around or fix also identified?

Thanks!

Karl
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2005, 11:08 AM   #183
diyAudio Member
 
ShinOBIWAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Default Re: Work Around or Fix of Waves XO Found?

Quote:
Originally posted by kfr01
I saw the identification of a seemingly show-stopping problem with the Waves XO a few pages of posts back.

I may have missed something, but was a work-around or fix also identified?

Thanks!

Karl
One of the downsides to FIR filters is ringing, what this means is that the roll-off eventually slows and the FIR filter begins to oscillate through the passband.

The workaround was to use higher roll off rates and also use the Low Ripple method for the FIR filters. This give you -100dB rejection in the passband. Accurate is around -60dB and Normal is -80dB.

Every FIR filter exibits this problem as much in the same way the an IIR filter distorts phase but its definitely inaudible when your talking about the low ripple method and steepish slopes.

Interestingly, Algoritmix's Orange PEQ is a linear phase filter but doesn't exhibit the ringing artifact because it works in the time domain. Downsides of its use are big latency and lack of very steep slopes, infact 4th order is the max rolloff you can use with this one.

For me the Waves package works best so far and I really wouldn't worry about the 'artifact' I discussed a few pages back when I was a little less wise. Its a non issue.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2005, 01:55 PM   #184
kfr01 is offline kfr01  United States
diyAudio Member
 
kfr01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Thank you

Shin:

Thank you for the wonderfully informative posts and your quick response to my question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2005, 06:49 PM   #185
diyAudio Member
 
ShinOBIWAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Default Re: Thank you

Quote:
Originally posted by kfr01
Shin:

Thank you for the wonderfully informative posts and your quick response to my question.
The only reason for my reply was out of fear.

I thought that could be a picture of you as your avatar
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2005, 04:40 PM   #186
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Torrance, CA
Still trying to pick a card - I have a couple of X-Fi cards in the house now but still looking at audiophile cards.

The SB X-Fi card isn't bad though, does anyone know if two of them can be clocked together?

The Delta 1010Lt card looks good, and the later posts mention the ESI card - an ESI WaveTerminal 192M (4 in 8 Out) looks good too - if I can get 2 of them in a single machine. I haven't seen if these take external clocks though.
__________________
== John ==
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2005, 03:26 PM   #187
ogp is offline ogp  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ohio
Send a message via AIM to ogp
From what I remember reading in this and earlier threads, I thought the M-Audio cards weren't good candidates because you couldn't use them with the software properly or something.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2005, 07:27 PM   #188
Zodiac is offline Zodiac  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kenfield, CA, USA
Shinobiwan

Would the lite version of waves (IR1-L) be usable as a DRC software engine or would it be better paying more for the full IR1 functionality?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2005, 10:49 PM   #189
diyAudio Member
 
ShinOBIWAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally posted by Zodiac
Shinobiwan

Would the lite version of waves (IR1-L) be usable as a DRC software engine or would it be better paying more for the full IR1 functionality?
I prefer the IR1-L as not only is the interface cleaner (the extra features of IR-1 simply aren't used) it also seems slightly quicker when like for like features are enabled.

At first I thought this was due to the internal precision being lesser on the L version but reading through the waves manual actually pointed out that the two operate on exactly the same engine.

I personally prefer Voxengo Prisine Space but IR1 is fine also.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2005, 07:11 PM   #190
Zodiac is offline Zodiac  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kenfield, CA, USA
Ah yes, Voxengo - trouble is I'm using a Mac and OSX so not an option. Looks like i'll investigate IR-L!

Thanks
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Page generated in 0.10089 seconds (82.96% PHP - 17.04% MySQL) with 10 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio